Meeting report · Planning and Zoning Commission
Creating this report cost real money.
Help fund coverage →
Planning and Zoning Commission — May 4, 2026
The meeting featured high-volume public testimony with multiple neighbors raising complex technical and social objections to a single development proposal.
Public impact
Issues from this meeting with documented community impact.
01
Zoning conversion at 50/52 Pearl Street
Conversion of a single-family residential property to a four-unit multi-family dwelling, increasing local density. Affected: Immediate neighbors and the local RB zone community
zoning change
Decisions logged
Every recorded vote, with timestamps and dissents.
Close the public hearing for the 50 Pearl Street application.
Motion by Mr. Kennedy, seconded by Mr. Schambom.
Unanimous
Approve the special exception for 50 Pearl Street (Special Exception -1979) with modification.
Approved for conversion to multi-family with the requirement that the stockade fence on the western edge of the plans be removed.
Passed (5-6 in favor and 2 nays - Note: Transcript indicates a split vote where 5 or 6 were in favor, passing the motion)
Issue a favorable report for the mandatory referral regarding 40 Pitkin Street.
Motion by Mr. Kennedy, seconded by Ms. Larson/Psych. The report supports the purchase for use as a municipal senior center.
Unanimous
Approval of minutes from April 20, 2026.
Motion by Mr. Kennedy, seconded by Ms. Larson.
Unanimous
Topics discussed
Click a topic to expand quotes and full context.
▶ 04:45 Roll Call and Meeting Opening
The Chair established a quorum with eight members present and noted the absence of the Secretary.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker
▶ 06:26 Public Hearing: OSA Services LLC Special Exception -1979
A request for a special exception to convert a single-family dwelling to a multi-family dwelling (up to four units) at 50/52 Pearl Street in the RB zone. The applicant argued the property has historically functioned as a multi-family home despite zoning records. Discussion regarding the request continued with concerns raised regarding density, drainage, fire/building codes, and the removal of a stockade fence. The applicant's engineer presented site plans including parking rearrangements, new water and fire lines, a rain garden for stormwater mitigation, and a proposed stockade fence for headlight screening. Neighbors raised concerns regarding drainage/flooding, garbage removal, potential lead paint/asbestos, water/sewer capacity, parking, and the impact of absentee landlords.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker
▶ 13:09 Site Plan and Utility Details
The applicant's engineer presented site plans including parking rearrangements, new water and fire lines, a rain garden for stormwater mitigation, and a proposed stockade fence for headlight screening.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker
▶ 33:09 Public Comment and Neighborhood Concerns
Neighbors raised concerns regarding drainage/flooding, garbage removal, potential lead paint/asbestos, water/sewer capacity, parking, and the impact of absentee landlords.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker
▶ 112:23 Mandatory Referral: 40 Pitkin Street Purchase
A report regarding the potential municipal purchase of the Concordia Lutheran Church property to be used as a new senior center.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker
▶ 122:25 Administrative Reports and Future Business
Discussion on commissioner training, scheduling a special meeting for zoning regulation updates, and acceptance of new applications including fireworks regulations and a residential conversion on Concord Street.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker
Controversy & dissent
Where the board, the community, or the agenda diverged.
Potentially controversial issues
01
OSA Services LLC Special Exception (50/52 Pearl Street)
The proposal to convert a single-family dwelling into a four-unit multi-family residence sparked intense debate regarding neighborhood density, drainage/flooding risks, infrastructure capacity (water/sewer), and the social impact of absentee landlords.
Board position: The board approved the conversion but mitigated certain neighbor concerns by requiring the removal of a proposed stockade fence.
Internal dissent
The vote was split, with a recorded result of 5-6 in favor and 2 nays (noting transcript ambiguity, but confirming a lack of unanimity).
high concern
Split votes
Approve the special exception for 50 Pearl Street (Special Exception -1979) with modification to remove the stockade fence.
5-6 in favor and 2 nays (Transcript indicates a split vote passing the motion)
Community vs. board tension
Ready to share? AI-written accountability posts about this meeting's controversies.
View posts →
Action items
Who owes what, by when.
Verify specific regulatory requirements for light shielding/screening for conversions.
Assigned: a speaker
Potentially modify the application to include the removal of the proposed stockade fence or change the request to a three-family conversion if the Commission requires it.
Assigned: OSA Services LLC (Applicant)
Sign up for commissioner training (affordable housing/market analysis).
Assigned: Commissioners · Due: ASAP
Check availability for a special meeting to discuss commercial zoning regulation updates.
Assigned: Commissioners · Due: June 29
Check the status of the Chair's continuing education items for the year.
Assigned: a speaker
Notable statements
The regulations in place when we applied is what control... [this] is a specific section that allows for the conversion of single-family residences to multifamily, which means up to four units. — Unidentified speaker · Clarifying why the application is being heard under the previous regulatory version rather than the new one. ▶ 11:03
I do not have a problem with them having a three-family there... But I would have a problem with that other driveway why because of the flooding issue. — Unidentified speaker · Neighbor expressing conditional support for a three-family conversion while highlighting drainage concerns. ▶ 44:18
I think that four would be overcrowded in that space... I don't know if I could say yes to four. — Unidentified speaker · Commissioner expressing hesitation regarding the density of a four-unit conversion in the specific location. ▶ 70:00
By adding the rain garden, this application probably improves drainage over what would happen if there just was no application. — Unidentified speaker · Discussing the environmental impact of the Pearl Street conversion. ▶ 96:32
Whenever the town looks at purchasing or selling property, state statute, Connecticut general statute requires the PZC to make what's called a report to the board of directors. — Unidentified speaker · Explaining the purpose of the mandatory referral for the Pitkin Street property. ▶ 102:01
Public comment
What residents said — verbatim, with timestamps.
6
Total speakers
4
Addressed
2
Partial
0
Not addressed
Bonnie Pataki
Addressed
Ms. Pataki expressed several concerns regarding the conversion, including zoning compliance for setbacks, potential lead paint issues, and water/sewer infrastructure. She also questioned the impact of increased density on garbage removal and the effectiveness of the proposed stockade fence and rain garden.
Key concern
Zoning compliance, utility capacity, density/garbage, and environmental mitigation (lead/drainage).
Board responseThe applicant's attorney and engineer provided technical details regarding drainage, the rain garden, and the non-conforming status of the buildings. The Board also discussed the screening requirements and water service updates.
The applicant and staff addressed her specific technical questions regarding setbacks, utilities, and drainage through detailed explanations.
Leslie Fry
Partial
Ms. Fry opposed the conversion of a barn into a four-family building, citing concerns about old, failing water and sewer pipes in the area. She also questioned the feasibility of the proposed nine parking spaces and expressed concern over absentee landlords.
Key concern
Infrastructure capacity (water/sewer), parking adequacy, and the impact of absentee landlords.
Board responseThe applicant's attorney addressed the history of the building, and the engineer/attorney discussed the parking plan and utility improvements.
Technical aspects like utilities and parking were addressed, but her philosophical objection to absentee landlords and the 'two wrongs don't make a right' argument was not a matter for board resolution.
Raylene Cronin
Partial
Ms. Cronin objected to the proposal based on the history of unpermitted uses and her belief that multifamily buildings lead to property neglect. She argued that four-family buildings often result in absentee owners who do not care for the town or the property.
Key concern
Property maintenance and the negative impact of multifamily housing/absentee landlords.
Board responseThe applicant's attorney argued that the owner is actively investing in the property and has an interest in maintaining it to ensure quality tenants.
The attorney countered the maintenance concern by highlighting the owner's active investment, though the personal opinion on multifamily housing was not 'addressed' as a formal policy.
Noel Veal
Addressed
Mr. Veal, the neighboring property owner, stated he does not have a problem with a three-family use but expressed concern about drainage and the proposed stockade fence. He noted a history of flooding in the area and prefers an open boundary between neighbors.
Key concern
Drainage/flooding and the impact of a privacy fence.
Board responseThe engineer explained the rain garden and drainage patterns, and the Board eventually moved to approve the application with a modification to remove the fence.
The board directly addressed his concern regarding the fence by making its removal a condition of the approval.
Bonnie Pataki
Addressed
In a follow-up comment, Ms. Pataki requested clarification on whether non-conforming structures are allowed to add new elements like air conditioners or generators during renovation.
Key concern
Expansion of non-conforming structures.
Board responseThe attorney addressed this by explaining that the existing structures are protected as non-conforming because no exterior footprint or structural changes are being made.
The attorney provided a direct explanation of how the non-conforming status applies to the current application.
Leslie Fry
Addressed
Ms. Fry returned to ask for clarification on whether the project would result in six two-bedroom units total.
Key concern
Total unit count and density.
Board responseThe applicant's attorney clarified the breakdown of units in the front versus the rear building.
The question was answered immediately by the applicant's representative.
Support coverage
Creating this report cost real money.
MeetingWatch attended, transcribed, and analyzed this meeting on its own dime. If this work is valuable to you, chip in to keep covering Manchester.
Follow Manchester
One email when a new report is published from the Planning and Zoning Commission — or one weekly digest.
Report composed by
grok-4.3, gemma-4-26b, grok-4-fast, grok-4.20-0309-reasoning · analyzed 2026-05-30.